Messages - roshan

Thanks for starting this thread. There have been numerous "Best of the Year" threads, but this gives us the chance to look through these "Best" albums and see the new classics have really stuck and are worth listening to.

Now, I'm allowing myself more free reign, and I find that I tend towards melodies (important point there) and riffs which are focused almost enitrely on evoking a sense of sheer power and exuberance in the listener, a primal "joy", for want of a better word. The feeling of having just killed three enemies on the field in quick succession, tinged with the knowledge that the battle is far from over, never mind the war; the sense of being the Cimmerian, fighting an uneven battle, with death looming over you at each second, while your companions' lives hang in the balance; ultimately, the notion of being the God, watching heroes struggle to act as best they can, faced with seemingly insurmountable horrors.

I don't think the piece brings this out at all - it's too saccharine. There's no aggression, no horror, and no threat of battle, death or loss. It sounds to me more like some pompous, showy parade, or some hobbits drunk in a tavern, tap dancing with the wenches.

I've always understood "atman" to be an aspect of Brahman, just as "self-awareness" is an aspect of humans. Because of the nature of Brahman, Brahman causes Brahman to consider Brahman to be an infinite number of different beings experiencing every possibility in whatever one might call an "instant" when there's no such thing as time (given that time is an illusion). But then, I'm sure that's not an orthodox way of looking at things, even though it makes perfect sense to me.

Well this is kind of a misunderstanding of Advaita as it's basically working backwards from a dualistic perspective. Advaita basically views all of physical existence as being temporary, ever changing, and relative (this includes identity, thoughts, emotions, whatever, all are fleeting/relative/temporary/illusory). It then concludes that the only constant is the "perception" of the relative reality (maya), which is the only "absolute". Brahman is therefore defined as being absolute awareness/consciousness/perception. Therefore, matter/thoughts/emotions/self (relative reality or "maya") are all superimposed on consciousness (brahman). The main "cause" of the superimposition of maya on brahman is one's own avidya or ignorance. Just like a dream, which is created from, by and through the mind, relative reality (maya) is created from, by and through itself, and is illusory in comparison to Brahman, the absolute reality. So Brahman itself is akarta, a non agent, incapable of causing anything as it it beyond the relative reality of causation and change, it is non dual, without a second, as it is all that truly exists.

So in Advaita, there is no such thing as a separate "atman", in Advaitic parlance atman is used as a synonym for Brahman. Brahman is the Atman and vice versa. the most famous Vedantic aphorism declares: "brahma sarvam jagan mithya jivo brahmaiva na aparah". Brahman is real, the universe is illusory, the soul and brahman are one and the same.

I'm sorry - but any article discussing Vedanta without referencing the Brahma Sutras is merely a joke. The only way to gain a clear perspective on the development of Vedantic thought through the ages is to start from the beginning and work onwards.

The idea of Brahman as being a universal reality is present and central even to Upanishads that predate Buddhism (Brihadaranyaka, Jaiminiya and Chandogya, for example, date to the late Vedic Brahmana period which predates Buddhism).

In contrast, dualistic sects of "vedanta" can all be dated to India's medieval era and are mostly associated with Vaishnavism:

Dvaita was founded by Madhava (1218-1317)Bhedabheda was founded by Chaitanya (1486-1584)Visishtadvaita was founded by Ramanuja (around the 11thc entury AD)

Dvaita Vedanta (“dualistic Vedanta”) school of Hindu philosophy, attaining moksha results in the atman recognising itself as part of an even greater being, known as paramatman, an aspect of Brahman. Ultimately, an individual can only attain moksha once all of their karma has been experienced, and they have no more desire to be reborn.

as opposed to the Dvaita concept of being with Brahman, separately, as a part of paramatman.

recognition of the true self, as in Dvaita Vedanta

This is not Dvaita. Dvaita recognizes five fundamental, *eternal* differences:

1. Between the individual soul (Jiva) and God (Vishnu).2. Between matter and God.3. Among individual souls4. Between matter and souls5. Among various types of matter

Dvaita is a monotheistic philosophy where souls do not merge into any supreme being - souls are instead predestined to end in heaven or to be damned in hell eternally. Another class of souls reincarnate forever.

Quote

This concept of anatta has certainly had an influence on later Hindu philosophies. In Advaita Vedanta (“non-dualistic Vedanta”), moksha is attained through the recognition of the true self, as in Dvaita Vedanta. However, the true self is then further recognised as being no different from Brahman itself. It is understood that the concept of individuality is illusory, and that all things are Brahman[9]. The state of moksha is described as being one with Brahman, as opposed to the Dvaita concept of being with Brahman, separately, as a part of paramatman. Advaita Vedanta, like Buddhism, makes no distinction between self and reality once release from samsara has been achieved. However, unlike Buddhism, the concept of atman is welcomed, and is seen as being an intrinsic part of the nature of Brahman, rather than a delusion created by a devolved consciousness.

Your description of Advaita in this paragraph is also very misleading. Atman and Brahman are synonymous in Advaita. There is no such thing as "being one with brahman" in Advaitic thought, simply because there is nothing to be one with brahman. Neither is there any such thing as one's atman - whether before or after moksha. In fact - strictly speaking, in Advaita there is no such thing as moksha, reincarnation, self or samsara at all.

I disagree with the articles claim that Advaita philosophy is a result of Buddhist influence on Hinduism - in fact, the Upanishads and the Brahmasutras (the foundational texts expounding Vedanta based on the Upanishads) are completely monist in nature (and not just that - they are also atheistic, in the sense that they do not teach the existence of any supreme "god", or ishwara). I recommend reading the following text which discusses the development of theistic thought within Hinduism:

What Shankara did when he created Advaita Vedanta was try and unify Hindu thought by merging the original Vedanta philosophy (in which Brahman is viewed as a universal reality) with the various theistic god cults that became popular in middle age India. Hence, Shankara's Advaita philosophy actually recognizes TWO brahmans, nirguna brahman (the universal reality) and saguna brahman (also called ishwara, a pantheistic god entity). Later theistic Hinduism only recognizes the latter.

In fact, Vedanta has had an influence on Buddhism - several Buddhist sects within Mahayana Buddhism actually recognize the existence of a universal reality:

You just haven't looked very hard. There are a shitload of bands out there that do the whole "pagan/nature/folk" thing (and most pagan black metal, like most orthodox/satanic black metal, simply sucks).

If you haven't read my post properly I'm not going to repeat myself here for the sake of your laziness. If you have read it properly but have posted incorrectly then, by all means, correct yourself

No need to pull out your e-penis.

Quote

if you would, I'd appreciate some examples.

Some examples of pagan/nature bands with good production values (what you seem to be confusing with "high quality", which is a different matter altogether):

There are lots of them out there, you can post on metal-archives if you want to find more of these bands. Of course, none of these bands are actually any good (and neither are any of the satanic bands you posted, for that matter), they just do the whole Drudkh/WITTR thing.

You just haven't looked very hard. There are a shitload of bands out there that do the whole "pagan/nature/folk" thing (and most pagan black metal, like most orthodox/satanic black metal, simply sucks).